$10,000 Offer to National RTL From American RTL to Name 'One' Pro-Life Justice PR Newswire Article Last Updated: 05/21/2008 12:53:40 PM MDT

DENVER, May 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "American Right To Life is offering attorney James Bopp $10,000 for National RTL," said the group's president Brian Rohrbough, "if he can name a single justice on the current U.S. Supreme Court who has ever acknowledged that the unborn child has a right to life, whether in a majority opinion or a dissent."

"A quarter century after Bopp and NRTL refused President Ronald Reagan's offer to work toward federalpersonhood legislation, they have long opposed all state personhood efforts," says the group's site AmericanRTL. HYPERLINK "http://americanrtl.org/" org.

On May 13, Colorado pro-lifers turned in 131,000 signatures exceeding by 55,000 the number needed to force a statewide vote to acknowledge in law the personhood of the unborn child.

"National Right to Life has misled the pro-life community to think that this is the wrong time to advocate personhood because we need one more Justice on the Supreme Court to have a pro-life majority," said Rohrbough. "But if we added a Justice who would uphold the right to life of the unborn, then we would haveonly one such Justice. The failed long-term strategy of regulating the killing of a fetus has left America without a single Justice who knows that it's wrong to kill an unborn baby; NRTL's compromise will never produce a pro-life court."

The method of killing a human child - one cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human child - proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion.

— Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting in Stenberg v. Carhart

3
posted on 05/22/2008 1:19:24 PM PDT
by Always Right
(Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia continues to educate the law students of America and, once again, presented his explanation that no right to abortion exists in the Constitution to students at Roger Williams University. Last month, Scalia told students at the University of Central Missouri the same thing.

Scalia said a legal right to an abortion is not found in the document that guides our judicial process.

If abortion advocates wanted to create a legitimate abortion right, they should rely on passing laws in the legislature rather than asking courts to unilaterally create one, he said.

You want the right to abortion? Create it the way most rights are created in a democracy. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea  and pass a law, Scalia said.

As he has before, Justice Scalia, who pro-life advocates hope will someday be one of the five votes on the high court to reverse Roe v. Wade, said the Constitution is not a living document that changes with the times.

5
posted on 05/22/2008 1:21:35 PM PDT
by Always Right
(Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)

I believe Rehnquist was; Scalia is anti-abortion, but his comments lead me to conclude that he DOES NOT consider an unborn baby a person. Thomas, Alito and Roberts haven’t really said enough that I have seen to be 100% certain (though my guess is that Thomas DOES consider an unborn baby to be a person).

8
posted on 05/22/2008 1:23:31 PM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

His challenge (”if he can name a single justice on the current U.S. Supreme Court who has ever acknowledged that the unborn child has a right to life, whether in a majority opinion or a dissent.”) is a “When did you stop beating your wife?” challenge.

He uses the word “current” to exclude Rehnquist.

He uses the phrase “in a majority opinion or a dissent” to exclude any extraneous writings or speeches.

He knows full well that there have been very few abortion cases brought before the Supreme Court since 1973 for the very reason that a losing case reinforces Roe v Wade.

Therefore, until you have a winning case, you don’t keep providing ammunition to the opposition by bringing losing cases.

He also knows that a judge who issues an opinion on science as a matter of law will likely never be considered for a position on the Supreme Court.

That of course is the fatal flaw of Roe v Wade (opinion on science as law) and he knows it. That is why Justices like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are so dangerous to Roe v Wade. They judge the law based upon the law and not opinions of Science.

What this guy wants is for them to make the same mistakes liberal judges did in 1973 and make a judgement based upon an opinion of science.

Of course, my opinion is that the “American Right to Life” is a shadow organization meant to discredit the “National Right to Life”.

I agree that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are probably pro-life. But, as Scalia constantly tells us, it is not for the justices to define this, but for them to determine which laws are constitutional and which are not.

Being strict constructionists, they should only judge the constitionality of the laws. I suspect that if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, They will all accept that each state can define it’s own laws. I also suspect they would accept as constituional the right of any state to declare the sanctity of life and to define protection from conception to natural death.

And we are no closer to overturning the genocide we know as Americas Holocaust than we were when Klinton was president.

I disagree. We have 4 YOUNG Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe, and we have 4 OLD Liberal Supreme Court justices who will defend Roe to their death. We have the pro-Roe justices on the ropes. On average, the anti-Roe justices are 15 years younger.

20
posted on 05/22/2008 3:06:17 PM PDT
by Always Right
(Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.